Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
I dont know why folks have to quibble at such length over whether we should refer to him as an antichrist or the antichrist. Indeed, the man of sin is "an" antichrist, and some would debate over wheter we should refer to him as "the" antichrist. Does it really matter that much?
It is simply using a commonly accepted term to describe something/someone. Even if the Bible doesnt specifically refer to him as "the" antichrist, I dont see what the problem is if some saints refer to him as such.
For example, we commonly refer to the "rapture" even though that word isnt found in the bible. Even the greek word there, harpazo, literally means
"forcibly snatched away", "taken for oneself".
But just because the word "rapture" isnt in the bible, but do we spend a lot of time telling people not to use it? Of course not. As long as those who use it know what's being referred to, it shouldnt really matter that much.
Similarly, if prophecy watchers choose to refer to the "man of sin" as "THE antichrist" as a way of distinguishing him from the many other "antichrists" , why is that such an issue? I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
|
After noting Jason's response, and disagreeing with it, lol, I wish to add more to this as well.
Here is why we stress that point. The problem is when you say THE antichrist, what do you mean? John said THE antichrist in
1 John 2 and chapter 4, so there is nothing wrong with saying THE antichrist. But was John referring to a man when he said that? NO. THE antichrist was a SPIRIT that denies Jesus came in flesh. The issue of Jesus coming in flesh is so vital, and it is VERY ONENESS. John specifically dealt with the
human element that is involved by saying there are MANY antichrists, with no reference to a specific one ever being human. The only specific
one is a spirit. When you refer to "THE" as a man you are actually contradicting John.
The thought that THE BEAST is THE antichrist is totally wrong. And this is the what people in error think of when they hear THE antichrist - they think of THE beast. Thus the issue of the a spirit that denies Jesus came in flesh is buried and cast aside. Someone who knows John's writings correctly would think of
the spirit when you said THE antichrist. So in your conversations about THE antichrist, where YOU would be thinking of a man called the beast in Revelation, the correct person would think you're talking about the spirit in
1 John 4 and wonder what on earth your ideas of a world dictator have to do with denying Jesus came in flesh.
In short, anyone who understands
1 John 4's reference would NEVER call the beast THE antichrist. The Bible did not call the beast the antichrist for good reason. John's concern about antichrist was a spirit. Never a man.
In other words, specifying there is no THE antichrist is clinging to what the scripture says about the issue. and helping people get out of the error that the beast is THE antichrist John spoke of in
1 John 4. The scripture said THE antichrist is a spirit. End of story.
It's a shame, though, that oneness people messed this up with the trinitarians, because the antichrist is a spirit that denies Jesus came in flesh, and not a world dictator. Of all people, the ONENESS people should be stressing what THE antichrist really is! But, no, we help the enemy blur the true picture and take attention away from the all-wonderful truth that Jesus came in the flesh when we say THE antichrist is a world dictator. Can we say the issue of a world dictator is more important than the issue of whether or not Jesus came in flesh? Our terms betray our choice.
Linear Mode
